A Small Victory for Bloggers: Why the Counter Insurgency is an Admission of the Power of New Media

Recently, there has been a big hooha over a recent article in the Straits Times that said that the government was going to launch a "counter-insurgency" by sending anonymous pro-PAP cyber commandos into the internet to counter critics of the government.

Since many have said their piece, I will not give my opinion on whether I think their plan will work. Rather, I wish to declare this a small victory for bloggers, and explain why I think the balance of media power is shifting, slowly but surely, from the hands of a dominant PAP towards a landscape where there is freedom of speech and equal opportunity for all.

1. The PAP now has to play on the internet on fair and equal terms. They no longer exert the monopoly of publishing on the web that they do in print media. On the internet, the PAP, WP, SDP and any other tom, dick or harry who wants to make a political comment has an equal opportunity to be heard.

2. In fact, the PAP is now at a distinct disadvantage. Because they cannot depend on their control of the medium, they now have to depend on the quality of the message. In the press, the lack of a competitive voice means that the PAP can skew and manipulate their messages in any way they like, without fear of reprisal and behing criticised on the spot. The internet, however is different:

• Any blog post that is put up by a PAP member can be instantly replied to on another blog by another blogger.
• Any comment left on a blog by a PAP member can be instantly replied to by other commenters.
• The internet is dominated by independent bloggers who are far ahead in experience, skill and prominence compared to PAP 'counter-insurgents'.
• Opposition parties have already been using this medium for many years, and will at least have an equal opportunity of expression. This is a far cry from broadcast TV and newspapers where the opposition has little say, if any.
  

3. The internet is rapidly growing in influence, and has already established itself as the dominant media for the young - in the not too distant future, it will have the ability to challenge the mainstream press and broadcast media as an equally powerful, if not more powerful, voice.

And because the PAP is playing catch-up, as highlighted in point 2, it stands to lose out in the race to claim ground on the new battlefield that is the world wide web. Instead, this is a great opportunity for bloggers and 'insurgents' to race ahead and to further cement their lead.

Conclusion
For too long already, the media have been dominated by the political machine that is the PAP. It is time for media in Singapore to be a much fairer playing field where different political voices, both partisan and independent, can have their say.

Lee Hsien Loong's Criticism of the Internet: How should the blogosphere receive it?

In his recent speech at the 6th ASIAN-EUROPEAN EDITORS’ FORUM, 6 OCTOBER 2006, Lee Hsien Loong made the following comments about the blogosphere:

31. The internet is enabling ordinary citizens to post news and views on the web, making information available more quickly and plentifully than ever. The conventional wisdom is that the free flow of information on the internet is universally a good thing. It is undoubtedly very difficult to control information flow. But as we find terrorist groups using the internet to plan murderous attacks, and paedophiles using it to prey on defenceless children, we are learning that while the internet is a great boon to mankind, it is not an unmitigated one.

32. In the pre-internet age, newspapers and television stations not only reported news and opinions, they also filtered, processed and verified the information, in order to present coherent perspectives which shape the public debate and the public’s collective understanding of the world around us. The internet short circuits and undercuts this model.

33. Even in the internet age, there will still be a role for serious journalism, whether in print or on the web, because people will still seek out information sources which are reliable, verified and insightful. But it will not be easy to keep the public debate on this high plane, especially on controversial issues. For the internet also enables clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths to circulate freely and gain currency through viral distribution, and these are not always easily countered by rational refutation or factual explanation. How to deal with this is something which every newspaper, and indeed every society, is grappling with.

For many in the blogosphere, such comments seem like a belittlement of bloggers, and an attempt to shape public opinion against internet journalism. But to what extent are these comments justified?

While it is true that there exist 'half-truths' and 'untruths' on the internet, it is also true that these half-truths and untruths are quickly corrected, or opposition to these untruths is quickly expressed. The rapid spread of information on the internet also allows the rapid spread of counter opinion and factual corrections in response to inaccuracies and half-truths.

Furthermore, the mainstream media is not exempt from 'clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths.' In fact, in the light of many recent events involving the mainstream media (including the comment on IJ girls, the censorship of the 'mee siam mai hum' comment on television replay, and the obvious downplaying of news critical of Singapore in the mainstream press) one would think that the Prime Minister is describing the state of the local daily and broadcast content just as much as he is describing the internet. The simple truth is, the weaknesses he criticises the internet of having are just as prevalent in established media.

The difference between the two is, however, that the ruling party is unable to monopolise the internet and impose its power structures upon it. The internet is free-wheeling and democratic, anyone and everyone with access to the computer can publish content at the click of a button. The real issue about the internet, from PM Lee's point of view, is that it presents a serious challenge to the ruling party's power.

In view of this, should we bloggers worry about PM Lee's remarks? Perhaps the best attitude we should have is one of no fear - and that is to simply continue writing and publishing quality honest opinions about the state of affairs. The best way to respond to such criticism is simply to raise the quality of internet discourse and prove to the incumbents that the internet can be, and often is, a platform for intelligent and informed debate, often more intelligent and informed than the mainstream press.

With this attitude, the internet can keep the mainstream media in check and continue to develop and establish its credibility, even in the face of criticism by the government. And in the process, it can play its crucial role as an independent voice keeping the government in check, as it should in a healthy, genuine democracy.